Guinevere: Truth of a Legend

[Stacey]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone had read Guinevere: Truth of a Legend? More info can be found here for those who maybe haven't.

 

It's about a woman who had a past life as Guinevere and has written about it. I read some reviews on Amazon. Some liked it, others were vitriolic in their disbelief of what she'd written. I am going to be studying Past Life Therapy so I like to read the different stories and methods people have tried and this sounded rather fun.

[Whiterose]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone had read Guinevere: Truth of a Legend? More info can be found here for those who maybe haven't.

 

It's about a woman who had a past life as Guinevere and has written about it. I read some reviews on Amazon. Some liked it, others were vitriolic in their disbelief of what she'd written. I am going to be studying Past Life Therapy so I like to read the different stories and methods people have tried and this sounded rather fun.

 

Honesty, it sounds like a crock to me.

[Abhainn]

My first question about a book like this is "how can I know that she's telling the truth?" I've had a few experiences with people who claimed to be all kinds of things in a previous life (but, I've noticed, never a regular person). And though I'm not entirely skeptical about past lives, I worry automatically when someone claims to have been someone famous, or powerful, etc. Anyone can claim to have been Guinevere in a past life, but if they make a big deal about it, it seems less likely and it makes those who have had legitimate past life experiences look like fools.

 

As a "new perspective" on the Guinevere myth, it might be interesting. I'd like to know if she includes the Lancelot part (since, from what I've read, the Lancelot affair was something added much later by the French). But as an expose on the real life of Guinevere, it would have to give stellar proof for legitimacy.

[Ally]

I have not read it..however, I am interested on past life regression ..

 

I am very skeptical...as to how this works,and if it can be realistic. I have some memories and passions I cant explain, however, I believe they are part of my soul's progress.

 

I think the book would be an interesting read of this lady's experience. Whether or not she's Guinevere, that's questionable. I have ancient egyptian memories...does this mean I'm cleopatra? i hardly think so. Still though, I am interested in her story..the author's story. Thanks for sharing, I think I'll read.

[Stacey]

I did a past life regression recently using Doreen Virtue's "Past Life Regression with the Angels" (I suck at meditation so the guided meditation works for me). I didn't do too bad for myself first time out. I tried again the other night but I don't think I was in the right head space - mostly the meditation made me tired. If I can't disprove it, I don't discount it, so who knows? Maybe she was Guinevere or the historical equivalent and just gave herself that name - there is also the thought that perhaps the legend is true, just a different truth to the historical accounts we've grown up with.

 

My opinion on the Arthur mythology is that the movie 'King Arthur' (starring the delicious and delectable Clive Owen) is more so probably closer to what the truth is, if there is a truth, than what has been reported in history. I think each successive Arthur story writer has romanticised the legend. I read a series by M K Hume called the 'King Arthur Trilogy' and while violent and bloody, it was actually a really interesting series - certainly a different interpretation. This one has Nimue in it - lover to Myrrdion Merlinus.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Stacey

[Stacey]

So temptation got the better of me and I bought the book to read (actually got it really cheap from Betterworld Books) and I actually quite enjoyed it. Can I say absolutely that she was telling the truth? No but it was very entertaining - quite violent too. She was very strong, I would say a very early feminist but she was also very stubborn and bullheaded, cheated on her husband, was his strategician in war and hated the fact that he got to go off to war and she had to sit around playing 'Queen'. Her best friend was from all appearances what we would call a witch (spells, charms, herbal works, visions etc), Merlin didn't play that large a role in her story.....

 

She topped herself at the end after Arthur died, she castrated her rapist when she was 17 and Morgana (Morgan Le Fay) seemed to be quite unstable and had a very innappropriate incestuous interest in her brother Arthur. All in all not a bad read, I do hold some doubts as it was incredibly detailed and it was claimed that this story unfolded during two days of past life regression, I would think the level of detail would take more than that. It's a different take on the legend which is always welcome.

[Panis_Ramey]

............ It's a different take on the legend which is always welcome.

 

It sounds interesting I have always been fascinated with the Matter of Brittan and especially with Guenevere. I've heard she was actually condemned to death by wild beasts(seems a bit much like too romance drama.) suicide sounds a lot more consistent with her status and that period of time.

 

The description of Morgana and Merlin sound right too.

 

I've had a few past life experiences from that time period but they all revolve around the Celtic peoples and the fall of Rome.

[Grymdycche]

I'm sorry, but I suspect she's a whack-a-doodle. What exactly does she claim? Because much of the Guinevere story was fabricated and altered, so what she says will be telling.

If she claims to remember her trist with Lancelot, she's an outright fraud.

Sounds to me like she wanted to justify her adultery in an exotic way.

 

We don't even know if there ever was a real Guinevere, (or even a "King Arthur", for that matter). I'm fairly satisfied the Arthur legend was based on a few real characters from the 6th century, but those characters have had fantastic embellishments over the centuries, and many more characters and story arcs have also been flat out invented. The stories have changed and evolved over the years, started by Welsh legend and contributed to by several authors (Geoffrey of Monmouth, Chretien de Troyes, Malory, and Tennyson to name but a few)

The whole Guinevere-Lancelot thing was added later by de Troyes in "The Knight of the Cart", to spice the story up.

 

This sums it up nicely,but I've read the same basic thing from numerous credible sources.

 

http://www.arthurian-legend.com/

The Legend of King Arthur - fact or fiction? King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table never existed in real life. They're purely figures of legend. There might have been someone called Arturus (or Riothamus) in Britain's distant past, but if there was, he was probably a Romano-British leader or military general campaigning against the marauding Saxon hordes in the 5th century AD. In that period of history, however, there was no such thing as knights-in-armour - horsemen didn't even use stirrups until much later, so they couldn't have worn and fought in armour. There are several theories about the location of the 'original' court of Camelot, and although research continues, these are irrelevances: King Arthur and his knights will always be figures of fantasy, and Arthurian legend should be appreciated for what it is: a large and unique body of wonderful early European literature.

 

[Cam]

I'm sorry, but I suspect she's a whack-a-doodle.

 

LOL, that is just too funny. Okay, I have to clean my computer screen of tea now.:party9:

 

Agree with the rest of your post as well.

[Stacey]

I'm sorry, but I suspect she's a whack-a-doodle. What exactly does she claim? Because much of the Guinevere story was fabricated and altered, so what she says will be telling.

If she claims to remember her trist with Lancelot, she's an outright fraud.

Sounds to me like she wanted to justify her adultery in an exotic way.

 

We don't even know if there ever was a real Guinevere, (or even a "King Arthur", for that matter). I'm fairly satisfied the Arthur legend was based on a few real characters from the 6th century, but those characters have had fantastic embellishments over the centuries, and many more characters and story arcs have also been flat out invented. The stories have changed and evolved over the years, started by Welsh legend and contributed to by several authors (Geoffrey of Monmouth, Chretien de Troyes, Malory, and Tennyson to name but a few)

The whole Guinevere-Lancelot thing was added later by de Troyes in "The Knight of the Cart", to spice the story up.

 

This sums it up nicely,but I've read the same basic thing from numerous credible sources.

 

http://www.arthurian-legend.com/

 

 

Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? That aside, Arthur wasn't a king - he was a Duke, Lancelot and Guinevere did have sex, however it was once. She was a warrior trained by her father, Camelot wasn't a castle, it was a fort which I think is more in keeping with the time period. I don't know if she was Guinevere (she used the welsh spelling in her book) but it makes for a fascinating read and adds another dimension to the legend. I am not so quick to dismiss people who claim interesting past lives because out of the 1000 who claim to be the same person - one may just be telling the truth - unlikely - but not impossible.

 

And hey if she is whacked, she's smart whacked cos she managed to get a book published.

[anjeaunot]

Sorry, Stacey.

 

I tend to be dubious when an author writes about a previous incarnation after a course of Past Life regression.

 

I cannot comment on this author's veracity because I haven't read the book. Your review has raised some doubts in my mind about the book.

 

Grymdycche beat me to the punch. I was drafting notes about King Arthur when he posted. I will post my views on Arthur in the Myths and Legend section.

[Panis_Ramey]

Truth or not I feel that a good story is worth reading. I'm so tired of reading stories about lovesick vampires, werewolves and a wizard who is sympathetically linked to a murdering sociopath. I hope in twenty years I wont have to see a person running around the park waving a perfectly good wand making branch saying stupefy ! or fireball !

[Cam]

Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? That aside, Arthur wasn't a king - he was a Duke, Lancelot and Guinevere did have sex, however it was once. She was a warrior trained by her father, Camelot wasn't a castle, it was a fort which I think is more in keeping with the time period. I don't know if she was Guinevere (she used the welsh spelling in her book) but it makes for a fascinating read and adds another dimension to the legend. I am not so quick to dismiss people who claim interesting past lives because out of the 1000 who claim to be the same person - one may just be telling the truth - unlikely - but not impossible.

 

And hey if she is whacked, she's smart whacked cos she managed to get a book published.

 

Everyone loves a good story, but from your post, I take it that this women is passing the story off as true.

 

Adultery is adultery, doesn't matter if it was only once, and does not make it any less objectionable - 'oh, sorry honey, I cheated on you, but it was only once'

 

Personally, I do not care for the whole camelot/avalon story because pivotal to the story is incest, adultery, and betrayal.

 

I think it is pretty much assured that the legend is in the majority a fictional tale, a story with great embellishment, or even absolute fiction, or with such a small grain of fact that it is tantamount to fiction.

[Grymdycche]

Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? That aside, Arthur wasn't a king - he was a Duke, Lancelot and Guinevere did have sex, however it was once. She was a warrior trained by her father, Camelot wasn't a castle, it was a fort which I think is more in keeping with the time period. I

 

And hey if she is whacked, she's smart whacked cos she managed to get a book published.

Stace,

 

I'll grant that she got those things you list correct, historically, but a little research on anyone's part is all it takes to learn of those things. According to one reviewer at Amazon, she got a number of things wrong, but since I'm not an Arthurian expert myself, I won't pretend to know enough to back him or her up on that.

 

I suppose there's something like a 1 in a 10 million(?) shot she's right but I just highly doubt it. To come up with a past life regression based on someone who's not only famous, but also based largely (though not entirely) on a mythology, it's just dubious.

I don't mean to be mean or anything. I have a skeptical nature. I frequently question authority, and am cautious to take anyone's word at face value. I do believe that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" for the most part.

 

BTW, lots of people are smart and whacked. I have several friends who've gotten books published, it isn't actually that hard these days... one can even go with Lulu.com. (They aren't particularly whacked though. Okay, well maybe a little.. ;)) Lots of crackpots get published. I think all these 2012 doomsday sayers are crackpots, but there's no shortage of books on that topic. Most publishers don't care about the veracity of the works they publish, only that they generate profit. She may very well be a very good, colorful, and engaging writer.

[Stacey]

I tend to be dubious when an author writes about a previous incarnation after a course of Past Life regression.

 

Oh I hear you. I expressed doubts myself about her story because PLR's are very subjective (this is an area I will be studying this year) and can be interpreted in many different ways. I also think the level of detail she has in this book would take more than two days - I imagine it would take months, if not years, to fully regress and be able to live the entire life of your past life in such a way that you can recall the smallest detail.

 

My only opinion was that, true or not, it was an interesting read that added another layer to the mythology. It more than likely is untrue but I still enjoyed the book.

[Whiterose]

Oh I hear you. I expressed doubts myself about her story because PLR's are very subjective (this is an area I will be studying this year) and can be interpreted in many different ways. I also think the level of detail she has in this book would take more than two days - I imagine it would take months, if not years, to fully regress and be able to live the entire life of your past life in such a way that you can recall the smallest detail.

 

My only opinion was that, true or not, it was an interesting read that added another layer to the mythology. It more than likely is untrue but I still enjoyed the book.

Not only are past life regressions very subjective but they can be entirely false as the client is open to suggestion in their trance state and the therapist is likely to implant false memories.